Can the CEO of a healthcare company be held personally liable for denying or delaying care that results in injury or death? It's a complex question that raises both legal and moral debates. In this video, we dive into the legal perspective, exploring how corporate structures protect executives and the challenges of holding them personally accountable. While frustration and moral outrage are understandable in such situations, the law often separates personal liability from corporate responsibility. Watch to gain insight into how liability works in cases involving healthcare decisions, the role of corporate shielding, and the potential for holding companies—not individuals—accountable.
So, the CEO of a healthcare company gets assassinated in downtown New York. Is it possible that the CEO could be liable for the injuries or even the deaths caused at their company by denying or delaying care?
Well, as an injury attorney, this is an interesting question to me, and I've had this discussion with other people. I guess it really depends on how you look at it. I tend to view it from a legal perspective, and the answer is: no.
First of all, the CEO operates within a major corporation with stockholders, a board, and a structured hierarchy. This means they are shielded by the corporation. As the president of that corporation, it's highly unlikely that you could come up with any legal theory that would hold the CEO of a healthcare company personally responsible for the death of someone whose care was denied or delayed.
Now, on moral grounds, that's where the debate is going online. I certainly understand that anyone who has been delayed or denied insurance they feel entitled to would be upset. If you lost your wife or daughter because of a delay in an operation or some form of care, you might feel like, "Whoever made that decision deserves to suffer consequences just as much as my innocent loved one didn’t deserve to die." I completely understand the frustration.
But the truth is this: morality is one thing, and legality is another. Oftentimes, our laws are based on what we as a society consider right and wrong—closely tied to morality. However, in this case, with where we are in our legal system right now, it's highly unlikely, in my experience, that you’d ever hold a CEO of a major healthcare company personally responsible for a death.
That said, you might hold the company responsible, especially if there is evidence that treating doctors pleaded with the company to provide care. If those doctors clearly explained the medical need, repeatedly advocated for it, and the company ignored or rejected it—leading to a death—then yes, you could potentially have a case against the company.
But the likelihood of obtaining a conviction (criminal) or even a judgment (civil) against the CEO personally? Not likely.
I hope this helps explain how the law works and clarifies the interplay between what you might feel morally or emotionally when you've been wronged by an insurance company, and what the legal system allows.